REVIEW 2 cited by
Understanding Defects in Generated Codes by Language Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
This study investigates the reliability of code generation by Large Language Models (LLMs), focusing on identifying and analyzing defects in the generated code. Despite the advanced capabilities of LLMs in automating code generation, ensuring the accuracy and functionality of the output remains a significant challenge. By using a structured defect classification method to understand their nature and origins this study categorizes and analyzes 367 identified defects from code snippets generated by LLMs, with a significant proportion being functionality and algorithm errors. These error categories indicate key areas where LLMs frequently fail, underscoring the need for targeted improvements. To enhance the accuracy of code generation, this paper implemented five prompt engineering techniques, including Scratchpad Prompting, Program of Thoughts Prompting, Chain-of-Thought Prompting, Chain of Code Prompting, and Structured Chain-of-Thought Prompting. These techniques were applied to refine the input prompts, aiming to reduce ambiguities and improve the models' accuracy rate. The research findings suggest that precise and structured prompting significantly mitigates common defects, thereby increasing the reliability of LLM-generated code.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Obey, Diverge, Collapse: Blind Obedience to Incorrect Instructions Drives Code LLMs to Irrecoverable Code Semantic Collapse
Code LLMs correctly label incorrect repair instructions as wrong, then follow them anyway, creating compounding Ghost Errors that self-guided iterative repair usually cannot reverse.
-
Specification and Detection of LLM Code Smells
A catalog of five LLM code smells and a static detection tool find that 60.5% of 200 open-source LLM-using Python projects exhibit at least one smell.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.